Who is Roger Pielke, Jr.? I'm not the only one asking that question. The oft-published political scientist, it seems, is a highly qualified academic, unlike a lot of bogus "scientists" dug up by conservative think tanks because they are the only people that can be found to offer the dissenting view on anthropogenic warming.
Yet, there is no doubt Pielke is a darling among skeptics, making the lists of people to contact to "balance out" the consensus view in media stories, despite adamently accepting the substantial science demonstrating human-caused global warming. He sticks in the craw of environmentalists and the scientific community for spurning many columns by global warming deniers, delayers or mainstream journalists wanting to equate Al Gore's attempts to get the science right with George Will's attempts to distort it.
As David Roberts of Grist put it:
Later this morning (Tues.), the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform -- led by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) -- will hold hearings on Bush administration political interference with climate scientists.
Now here's a funny thing. Lauren Morello's story for E&E (sub rqd.) contains this account of who will testify:
Among those set to testify tomorrow is former government scientist Rick Piltz, who now directs the Government Accountability Project's Climate Science Watch. ... Also on the witness list are Drew Shindell, a climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies and a colleague of Hansen's, and Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Notice any names missing? Ah yes, the press perennial Roger Pielke Jr. Surely this modern-day Zelig will not miss a chance to show his face? Nope, he won't -- he's testifying.
So how did he get added to the testimony list at this late hour?
I hear from reliable sources -- and this was confirmed by Piltz -- that the Republicans on the committee specifically requested Pielke Jr.
It is not a surprise that they would call Pielke -- they think he will testify in a way that helps them. But why do they, if Pielke is so adament about his acceptance of the science of climate change? What is it global warming deniers love about him? Pielke plays clueless: "I don't consider myself a darling of the deniers, some of my views are accepted, others are not (see the comments on my blog!) ... but if there are specific people you are thinking of, then I'd say, just ask them, I'd be curious what you find out ..." he told me in an email response.
In Sourcewatch's wiki, there are some
troubling examples raised of his flirtation with "skeptics", including his name appearing on a list of press contacts for famed global warming denier Jame Inhoefe's office. In a Q&A from Brad Johnson of the Center for American Progress (which
Pielke published on his blog), Pielke explains it this way:
How regular is your correspondence with Marc Morano?
I suppose you are referring to the email from Mark Morano (a staffer for Senator James Inhofe, R-OK) that you “exposed” as representing a list of “climate denial jokers” (cute!). Looking back over my email records, it appears that I was asked in January, 2008 by Mark Morano if he could periodically send me an email newsletter. I replied “Sure.” As a blogger and policy analyst I am on many (too many) email lists, and I am happy to receive all of these emails from many different groups and perspectives, as they collectively give me a sense of what people are thinking and reading, as well as giving me pointers to information that I might not otherwise see. Our Center has an email list which we use to send around a Briefing every few months (sign up here). Such lists are part of the process of communication, so I am quite happy to receive Marc Morano’s emails.
Are there other “Obamites” who participate in discussions with Inhofe’s staffers like you do?
I am not sure what “discussions” you are referring to, but if you are asking if there are other people who support Barack Obama who receive emails from Mark Morano, then I am pretty sure that the answer is “yes.” Morano did not ask me who I voted for or support when he asked if he could send me emails, so I don’t think that is a criteria to receive them. If your question is whether or not Senator Inhofe’s staff participate in discussions with people who support Barack Obama, then the answer is of course they do. I’d wager that Senator Inhofe’s staff talks with many Democrats on a daily basis. In fact, Republican and Democrats often participate in discussions together, and sometimes these discussions include Independents.
As far as your line of questions so far, they are evocative of how, in the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy went after people he thought associated with Communists. Here is an excerpt from one of McCarthy’s congressional hearings, this one with Aaron Copland:
McCARTHY. — Mr. Copland, have you ever been a Communist?
COPLAND. — No, I have not been a Communist in the past and I am not now a Communist.
Q. Have you ever been a Communist sympathizer?
A. I am not sure that I would be able to say what you mean by the word ‘’sympathizer.” From my impression of it I have never thought of myself as a Communist sympathizer.
Q. You did not.
A. I did not.
Q. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
A. I never attended any specific Communist Party function of any kind.
Q. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?
A. I am afraid I don’t know how you define a Communist meeting.
Q. A meeting you knew then or now had been called by the Communist Party and sponsored by the Communist Party.
A. Not that I would know of. No.
Q. Did you ever attend a meeting of which a major or sizable number of those in attendance were Communists?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist Party?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever discuss with you the possibility of your joining the communist Party?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. I know that every man has a different type of memory, so we can’t ask you to evaluate your memory. Would it seem logical that were you asked to join the Communist Party, you would remember?
A. If I had been asked to? Not unless it had some significance in my mind.
Q. So your answer at this time is that you can’t say definitely whether you have been asked to join the Communist Party or not?
A. No.
Q. Are any of your close friends Communists?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know any members of the Communist Party who are Communists?
A. I don’t know any member of the Communist Party, as far as I know.
As for the other charges, we thought we'd ask Pielke about them to get him on record with a response.
-----------------------------------
REPLY: McIntyre and I were both working on issues of landfall fequency on hurricanes and posting up our work on our blogs, and I asked him if he'd like to co-author a piece. He did a nice job and the joint work is solid. No I have not demonized him for who he is and decided that if I wanted to judge him for myself, actually working with him would be a good way to do that. Here is one result of that collaboration, you can judge its quality for yourself:
Pielke, Jr. R. A. (with contributions from P. Hoeppe and S. McIntyre), 2008. Case studies in disaster losses and climate change, pp. 131-140 in the Proceedings of the 15th 'Aha Huliko'a Winter Workshop on Extreme Events, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, January 2007.
For whatever it is worth I've also co-authored a piece with Ray Pierrehumbert (of Real Climate) and another one with John Christy. I'm a big fan of evaluting science papers by their actual content not authorship. I don't mind working with people with whom I don;t agree with them on every single issue.
-------------------------------------
DOK: One thing I wonder is... how do you feel about being used as a source by deniers and Cato and the like?
-------------------------------------
REPLY: If my work is solid and well argued then I am proud of it. If, for example, I say that hurricane damage results from development on the coast and not stronger storms, and "deniers and Cato and the like" cite that fact, is it my fault for doing the research or the fault of those who make claims that allow "deniers and Cato and the like" to positively cite my work? Would you prefer that I conduct my research by asking who will like what results first? Probably not.
-------------------------------------
DOK: What about an asymmetrical column slamming Gore for backing down, without mentioning Will's because he's stubborn about them?
REPLY: My criticism with Gore was based on my own research, and Gore's misrepresentation of knowledge in this area. I can speak authoritatively on this subject. By contrast, I am not an expert in ice coverage, so my discussing Will would only be cheerleading pure and simple. Further, I have long argued that fighting with skeptics over science is a losing proposition, so for these two reasons (lack of expertise, and view that battling skeptics is a mistake) why would I do it?
DOK: Does it bother you to be used to generate an article like Andy Revkin's?
------------------------------------
REPLY: No, why would it? Are you suggesting that when I saw Gore making a serious error that I should have ignored it? Gore was wrong, I pointed that out. What anyone does or does not do with that information is really not under my control.
------------------------------------
DOK: What about the perception that you're playing the role of Joe Lieberman and Patrick Michaels who get a disproportionate amount of media attention because you AREN'T representative of the mainstream views?
------------------------------------
REPLY: I don't even know how to answer this question. My views are my views, and they have been pretty consistent for the past 15 or so years that I have been publishing and writing. If people find value in them, great. If others are critical of them because they are sometimes uncomfortable or different, that is their problem and not mine. I try to call things like I see them and have made no secret about my views and I try to back them up with rigorous analysis and reasoning.
-----------------------------------
And there you have it. We'll have more attempts to psychoanalyze Pielke through cyberspace shortly.
Click Here to get this from FreeFlashToys.com!
Comments